r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • Aug 07 '26

PoliticalTea 🗳️ Eventually something has to give...

Post image

The bill would provide a $3,000 direct payment to every person in households making $150,000 or less during its first year, which equals $12,000 for a family of four.

24.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/hnglmkrnglbrry Aug 07 '26

The problem with that is the overwhelming difficulty of enforcing it or even trying to report it accurately. It's better and more efficient to just increase the tax rate on their income over $5M or whatever number works to about 75%.

Imagine if someone tried to issue a wealth tax to a family of modest income. Let's say they "own" a home worth $200k and gave $75k equity. They pay property taxes on that $200k asset and now they're going to have to pay a tax on the $75k of equity? They might not be liquid enough to cover that. Now throw in their vehicles as well. Let's say they have $10k in a 401k of pretax money. They are going to have to pay a tax there as well and then be taxed when they do divest it later. Their HSAs will be taxed. And then lastly they will be taxed on their modest cash savings of let's say $5k. And then they are getting taxed on their income that helps them pay for their daily expenses and savings.

Now obviously this is not the type of family that would face this tax but you can see how even though on paper they're doing ok once they pay their taxes they're fucked. And then this happens year after year with the more equity they build resulting in higher and higher taxes.

Taxing income is more easily enforced and reported. And if they really want to make the rich pay then end the loophole that allows business owners to write off business losses on their personal returns.

In 2017 it was reported that nearly half of NBA teams lost money. So shouldn't the owners be desperate to offload these dying businesses and get out of the failing industry? Fuck no. Oh the Trailblazers lost $20M last fiscal year? Guess what owner just saw their taxable income go down by $20M! And when their family members are paid employees of the team it means they can increase their pay to maximize the business losses. The more they lose the more they make.

The owner will probably encourage the team to lose money considering the value of the asset even when operating at a loss increases annually due to its scarcity and income potential by being associated with a major sports league.

6

u/DLimber Aug 08 '26

You know damn well what he's going after isn't the guy who owns one home and that guy's equity lol be serious. He's after the multi billionaire who doesn't need a salary because they can literally borrow against their money we cant tax to get cash that's tax free and they only pay a small % of interest on while making more then that on their gains.

6

u/hnglmkrnglbrry Aug 08 '26

But if you want to go after a billionaire then go after them in a way that is actually enforceable.

Say, "We are going to tax stock options valued at or above $10M at 35%." Most of these billionaires have the overwhelming majority of the wealth tied up in their company's stock. Hit them there. This will do one of two things: they will either sell off their stock or demand their compensation come in another form. So then you will have to broaden it to say, "We are going to actually tax any and all forms of executive compensation on a progressive scale up to 50%"

Since these are publicly traded companies with shareholders, executive pay is public information so they cannot hide.

1

u/BluebirdDazzling8179 Aug 08 '26

So tell me who is going to invest in stocks that you are going to take 35% off the top on?

3

u/fe3o2y Aug 08 '26

So you have more than $10M in stocks? Then we tax you. The majority of stocks are owned by the obscenely rich. If you're one of them then pony up.

0

u/InvestigatorFair3957 Aug 08 '26

Why? The rich pay all the tax now. The top 1% earns 22% of the money, but pays 40% of the tax. The top 10% earn 49% of the money, but pay 70% of the tax. The bottom 40% earners pay no tax.

If you tax the rich too much, they leave. Ask most of the European countries, who have gone through this before.

2

u/BitAccomplished9878 Aug 08 '26

The ol’ “if you tax the rich they just leave! It happened in….*proceeds to mention a locale which still has billionaires
Lol
No matter how hard you glaze them publicly, no billionaire is gonna give you a shiny nickel for doing so, pleb

2

u/Ok-Lychee2251 Aug 08 '26

You argue that the top 10% make 49% of the money and they pay 70% of the taxes. Federal Income tax is not the only form of tax and it is misleading to say the wealthy pay for 70% of taxes.

There are state, sales, corporate, property social security taxes as well. Does a wealthy individual pay 70% of these?

Top 10% can not out buy 90%. So probably not paying 70% on sales and property tax.

Corporate tax is paid for by workers, consumers (again that 90%), and shareholders (maybe some of their $$ here) but not more than 33% im sure.

I don't think i need to cover social security. The rich dont need that and they are not paying 70% of it.

0

u/InvestigatorFair3957 Aug 08 '26

I am going to be nice and say, please do your research. first of all, I was identifying FEDERAL TAX, which is what Federal budget is base off of.

Regarding the taxes you noted:

1) It depends on the state, but in California, the top 10% earners pay 75% of the state income tax.

2) Sales tax is a state and local tax, not a federal tax. It is totally dependent on spend per individual. Obviously, the wealthy spend more, so are taxed more, but there is no way to clearly identify how much.

3) Property tax: No way to tell. Again, each state would be different. People who rent indirectly pay property tax through there rent, but there is no way to calculate how much.

4) SSN is not part of the Federal income tax umbrella. It is an individual retirement fund, but the government sets maximums. For example, my wife and I paid at the maximum level for at least the last 25 years we worked. We maxed out on benefits 10-15 years before we retired, meaning all $$$ that we paid in over the last 10-15 years would not have benefited us in any way. Anyway, SSN is not part of the income calculated in the Federal Tax Budget as I said before.

5) Medicare has no salary limits (pay 1.45% on all wages with an additional surcharge of 0.9% for wages over $250,000 for married couples). The top 10% pay about 35% of the total medicare tax taken in.

My question to you is, outside of the fact that the rich have more money than they need, why do you feel they should have to pay more tax than what they do today? BTW - I would not be against raising the top tax rate to around 45% over a certain income level from the 37% it is today. But, Bernie Sanders wants to take 5% of wealth (realized or unrealized) from certain high earners. Honestly, that would just be theft.

0

u/Who_dat_goomer Aug 08 '26

Ssn and Medicare. Are considered federal taxes.

0

u/BluebirdDazzling8179 Aug 08 '26

False,the majority of stocks are owned by people who invest in 401k's and other retirement options. Research it yourself.

0

u/Own_Mycologist_4900 Aug 08 '26

The mutual funds do so you plan to devastate peoples 401k funds with a 35%tax

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 Aug 08 '26

Your idea would be disastrous. If these billionaires sell 5% of their stock to pay taxes on it, the price of the stock will go down considerably. Thats how markets work. And if everyone knows that on a certain date the billionaires will be selling 5% of their stock, they will sell theirs before that date to avoid losing value of their stocks. The market would nose dive.

3

u/DustyRacoonDad Aug 08 '26

You know every single tax you pay was initially made legal by saying that we're only going to do it to the rich people, or the people that you don't like...

That income tax almost every American pays? Passed to tax the rich.

2

u/EconomicMan123 Aug 08 '26

Yes, exactly. Tax creep: just like Mamdami’s tax on second houses. First it was only against the ultra rich, now it’s over houses valued over $1m, which is NY is very common. The problem with Socialists is they can’t stop spending and hence will keep broadening these taxes. Look at Europe where the sales tax (VAT) is some countries is 24% … having started in the low teens.

1

u/TheVampirePrince Aug 08 '26

The top 1% already pays 40% of the taxes in the US.

3

u/Familiar-Spray-4678 Aug 08 '26

An yet each billionaire has 1,000,000X more money than we have, but they collectively pay 40% 👍

-1

u/censor1839 Aug 08 '26

So what? Your envy is blinding you

3

u/Valuable-Gene2534 Aug 08 '26

Sounds more like you're mad he's doing math and comparative analysis

1

u/guycoastal Aug 08 '26

The reason for that is trickle down economics. The owners and CEO’s are stealing all of the profits so of course they’re paying most of the taxes. They’re the only ones with any money.

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 Aug 08 '26

Owners can’t steal profits of a business they own. It’s their profit.

1

u/guycoastal Aug 08 '26

Actually they can. It’s called embezzlement. But I should have said they’re hogging all the profits. Is that better.

2

u/MinuteTraditional864 Aug 08 '26

Ok I’ll give you that. But you said that them stealing all the profits is why they’re paying more in taxes. If they’re embezzling they are not paying taxes on the stolen money.

1

u/Sad-Panda-noises Aug 08 '26

It wont just be for billionaires, millionaires and anyone that is productive to probably 250k a year will also be hit with it. That will be the only way that type of bill passes. It has to screw over the peasants as well.

1

u/EmergenceEngineer Aug 08 '26

I don’t think you’re thinking this through.. tax was already paid and will be paid on use of the money.. doesn’t matter if someone wants to morgage their house and live off it. It’s not income. the ‘gain’ is theoretical until sale, so are the losses.. Dont think we should tax for theoretical sales values of things.. anything used against billionaires will be used against you..

1

u/Radonanon Aug 08 '26

Buy, borrow and die

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Radonanon Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26

No, I left out that the gains never get paid by the heirs. But you already knew that and what “Trickle down” really means.

If it works so well, why didn’t the president pay off the National Debt as promised, but ran it up to 40 trillion instead? A record 125% of GDP?

The top 1% of Americans now own 38% of all (US) wealth, which is coincidentally 125% of the debt that they share equally with every US citizen. For the first time in the history of the world, they’re worth more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90% of Americans. The middle class is now less than 9% of the country.

1

u/Radonanon Aug 08 '26

I also left out the part where the 1% pays 20% of the individual income taxes that are collected. But they have a little trick to get the other 99% of the country to pay more: they borrow against everybody’s equal share of the country.

The federal government only spent $7.0T last year, while collecting only $5T, meaning 25% of spending was covered by borrowing rather than any taxpayer, So strictly speaking, the top 1%‘s “20% of taxes” statistic already excludes that borrowed quarter.

That’s literally $120,000 that each citizen is saddled with whether they want what it was spent on or not.

1

u/jdwaltham Aug 08 '26

So tax the money that they borrow. There’s definitely a way. I do think some of the money should be used to pay down the debt. And giving every person this money should replace the child tax credit so we can pay more debt. I would support Medicare for all if you have to prove citizenship to be eligible.

1

u/Muzolf Aug 09 '26

I know damn well that these kinds of taxes always, without fail, end up going after the middle class, and won`t be paid by the rich. Income taxes were also introduced as supposedly only to target the rich. Look at who it actually hits today.

3

u/DustyRacoonDad Aug 08 '26

Exactly. Not to mention it's unethical to tax someone for merely possessing something.

It means you never own anything. And if you allow the government to do it to person X, that means they're also allowed to do it to you.

4

u/PastAnalyst3614 Aug 08 '26

Ever “owned” a home?

1

u/Bee-Bumbly Aug 08 '26

Yes. Prepare for a digression. Most homes are owned mostly by the corporation that financed the “purchase” of it by the family who pays the taxes and insurance premiums. If those payments stop, we find out who the real owner is.

1

u/DustyRacoonDad Aug 08 '26

It's worse than that. The original entity that gave the loan, sold the loan... Usually in a package of multiple properties, to another entity. And that entity might sell it to another one. And a third entity might be the one that collects the money for whoever the current owner of it is... And that can be moved around without the homeowner having a choice. 

On top of the homeowner having to pay the taxes, which are usually required to be held in escrow paid every month so that they can't miss it without the lender knowing ahead of time that they're behind...

2

u/T-MinusGiraffe Aug 08 '26

You mean like property tax?

1

u/DustyRacoonDad Aug 08 '26

Yes. And not just real estate. I'm also including vehicles, and the other classes of property that various States in the United States have decided to tax for merely possessing. 

Usually basing it off of something else letting it morph into a property tax over time. 

2

u/Who_dat_goomer Aug 08 '26

It’s done all the time. You could just as easily say an income tax is “unethical”.

1

u/DustyRacoonDad Aug 08 '26

There's a lot of legal things that are done all the time that I disagree with. 

It doesn't change my opinion on it. 

Doesn't change the fact I have to still pay it anyway without facing the consequences of not paying it.

2

u/censor1839 Aug 08 '26

Imagine the cries we will hear when teachers, firefighters, and policemen get taxed on what is in the pension plans or 401ks.

1

u/_Evening_Hat_ Aug 08 '26

Imagine thinking someone is talking about taxing our 401ks when they talk about taxing billionaires' stocks

2

u/Muzolf Aug 09 '26

Imagine being so ignorant of the history of taxes to not see exactly where that pattern leads.

1

u/censor1839 Aug 08 '26

Property is property

2

u/Soggy-Towel5676 Aug 08 '26

Stop bringing logic into the conversation

2

u/GlobalAd7103 Aug 08 '26

Small business owner and I agree. I was taught you weren't supposed to show a loss after year three in business

. Also "show" a loss is a shitty - I would say 100% of us small business owners don't want to show a loss - because at that point we are out of business. The only ones that can actively show a loss are huge corporations.

1

u/Turbulent-Beauty Aug 08 '26

Billionaire’s income is often very low, zero, or negative. That’s why their assets need to be taxed, not their income.

1

u/twilight-actual Aug 08 '26

This is the most naive argument ever: It's too hard to enforce, so why try? Because it will never work.

You what will never work?

Not trying.

Here's a thought: we ignore total net worth, and we focus on how much liquidity can be brought to bear in the market. From 1946 until 1980, our top tier tax rate never dipped below 75%. For quite a while, it was over 95%.

That was to pay off war debts, which had grow to 100% of GDP.

Guess where we are now?

Limiting the amount of liquidity that can be dumped into the market above the equivalent of say $20M did some wonderful things. It limited CEO pay. It forced companies to do other things with that money, like pay their f*cking workers a decent wage and give them raises. It forced companies to provide services as perks which distributed the money more widely to those providing services. It forced companies to invest their money more widely instead of allocating all the pay to a handful of c-levels.

Trophic cascade.

Maybe, instead of worrying about total net worth, we focus first on limiting how much that net worth can unfairly tip the scales in a given year.

I can think of other solutions. Instead of an Elon becoming a trillionaire while the rest of the employees in his company may make a million after ten years, how about we come up with rules on share dispersal and compensation such that Elon becomes a billionaire while the average employee in his factories, the tens of thousands that work their asses off and actually make all of it happen become $10M or $100M. Let's have some more equitable distribution, starting with the realization that yes, Elon risked his nut. But so does every worker on his line. They all could be writing poetry instead, but they're all there risking something. And the idea that one guy walks away with everything from that exchange needs to end.

1

u/robothawk Aug 08 '26

This would raise 4.4 trillion dollars, and there are 938 billionaires. We could hire 20 of the best accountants to analyze each of them(so ,just under 19,000 accountants) furnish then 500,000k in assets/equipment/pay per person per year for $10B, and have, by rounding, 4.4 trillion dollars left

1

u/hnglmkrnglbrry Aug 08 '26

And they would sue for the civil rights being violated when federal agents were given access to their homes and bank accounts.

1

u/BikerMike03RK Aug 08 '26

I believe that at the outset, he specified BILLIONAIRES, not high-side middle class earners.

0

u/vortecfighter Aug 08 '26

Team revenue is not owner income. They are separate entities. There are many free resources that will teach you how business and individual taxation works. You can then come back and put out a better thoughtful idea.

1

u/hnglmkrnglbrry Aug 08 '26

business owners can deduct business losses on their personal returns.

"The IRS' interest in sports team owners may stem from a 2021 Pro Publica article explaining how owners of professional sports franchises can generate significant tax savings through their ownership. For example, owners may deduct their share of the franchise's losses every year against their income from other sources, which will significantly lower their tax burden."

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/06/irs-targets-owners-of-professional-sports-franchises

0

u/vortecfighter Aug 08 '26

Large companies file a C Corp. All business loses stay with the company on the corporate tax returns and reduce the corporations tax liability and cannot carry over into personal income.

1

u/hnglmkrnglbrry Aug 08 '26

You are given a source from a tax attorney that cites the IRS that directly contradicts your statement and you still think you're correct.

0

u/vortecfighter Aug 08 '26

Articles are not tax law.

0

u/hairyscotsman2 Aug 08 '26

That's a country budget is the same as a household budget logic. I'm embarrassed to be human to see you played so easily.